Author Topic: Not historically correct BUT?  (Read 6426 times)

Offline Jubel

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Not historically correct BUT?
« on: November 03, 2008, 04:29:36 PM »
Loading blocks and gun carts are not truly historically correct either.  I'm not trying to create controversy but my Schofields are just begging for speedloaders at the loading table.
My town's a little too small for a gun store with reliable hours and products supply, so I need to order on line. My problem, has anyone out there thought enough about this same question to try them? Would the 29-M or the 25-5 speed loader work best with Colt and or Schofield cartridges? I'd hate to order then need to reorder, too expensive at $9.00 each for me to eat the wrong size. Any help would be appreciated.
Cousin we been ashooten at each other all day! How about we stop for a beer then we kin go home and get our axes. Or just as good, lets forget this whole dang feud, I'm agetten too old for this anyhow!

Offline Flint

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2008, 07:41:15 PM »
Speedloaders have been mentioned before here or on the SAAS Wire.  The S&W 45 cal speedloader works as far as I know.  Just can't use it for a reload on a stage.  Loading table use shouldn't be a problem.  Take the cylinder with you to a gun shop and try it.
The man who beats his sword into a plowshare shall farm for the man who did not.

SASS 976, NRA Life
Los Vaqueros and Tombstone Ghost Riders, Tucson/Tombstone, AZ.
Alumnus of Hole in the Wall Gang, Piru, CA, Panorama Sportsman's Club, Sylmar, CA, Ojai Desperados, Ojai, CA, SWPL, Los Angeles, CA

Offline swordboy

  • Very Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • pain is a good teacher
    • master the blade
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2008, 08:06:28 PM »
I don't see how some clever gunsmith or frustrated cavalry men didn't or couldn't invent a faster way to load the weapon
the line between genius and madness may be a fine one ,but theres a big brick wall between crazy and stupid

Advertising

  • Guest
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #3 on: Today at 05:09:59 PM »

Offline St. George

  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4828
  • NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2008, 11:58:11 PM »
They did - there was a wooden 'spool' that was cut to fit the round and they were held in place by a glued paper strip, or a brass one.

They were called the 'Kelton Pistol Pack' and they were invented by Brevet Brigadier General John C. Kelton, who was granted two Patents - #331,891 - issued on December 8, 1885, and # 394,373 - issued December 11, 1889.

A similar device was manufactured by Colt - Patent # 402,424 granted to Carl J. Ehbets - and  was patented on April 30, 1889 - and they were sold to the Navy, along with the Model 1889 .38 revolvers.

No record of the number that Colt made, but it's doubtful there were many produced, and though they made 200 of the 'Kelton Pistol Packs'  for Trials with the Schofield - none were adopted - none were made for civilian use.

Back then, as now - the primary weapon was the long gun.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!





"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."

Offline Fox Creek Kid

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4559
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2008, 02:21:36 AM »
...They were called the 'Kelton Pistol Pack' and they were invented by Brevet Brigadier General John C. Kelton, who was granted two Patents - #331,891 - issued on December 8, 1885, and # 394,373 - issued December 11, 1889...

Thanks, St. George, I knew of the Ehbets loaders but not the Kelton. I think the first real PRACTICAL speed loader issued in mass quantities was the British Prideaux Device in WW I.

Offline St. George

  • Deputy Marshal
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4828
  • NCOWS , GAF, B.O.L.D., Order of St. George, SOCOM,
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2008, 08:10:20 AM »
Though somewhat cumbersome, the Prideaux loader actually worked efficiently, but it was found to be equally easy to load single rounds, so you don't see a lot of them available today.

The others are flimsier in construction and seemed to be designed as a one-shot deal - the loader being cast aside after it's done it's job, and not reloaded.

Then as now, soldiers don't continue using equipment that isn't efficient, is cumbersome, or just plain doesn't work - they 'lose' it, or it 'breaks' about as soon as someone turns their back.

The different Trials of proposed equipment were harsh - the gear being subjected to the day-to-day rigors of soldiers and Campaign Life - and Officers could be harsh in their assessments when it wouldn't hold up.

Today, Natick Labs conducts the same sorts of tests, with the ability to test under 'all' conditions.

Vaya,

Scouts Out!





"It Wasn't Cowboys and Ponies - It Was Horses and Men.
It Wasn't Schoolboys and Ladies - It Was Cowtowns and Sin..."

Offline John Smith

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2008, 09:24:06 AM »
I use a HKS #25 with my Schofield, also works on auto rims in my Webley.

Offline Jubel

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2008, 09:18:01 AM »
FYI  ;D Well I tracked down the 25-5 speedloader and tried it on my Schofields. Worked like a charm!!
Best yet it worked as well or better (no rattle) with my Schofield loads. Thanks to all who responded.
Cousin we been ashooten at each other all day! How about we stop for a beer then we kin go home and get our axes. Or just as good, lets forget this whole dang feud, I'm agetten too old for this anyhow!

Offline Books OToole

  • NCOWS Member
  • Top Active Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 2681
  • Michael Tatham
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2008, 09:33:20 AM »
Since the issue as been resolved, I am tardy;  as usual.

I finally got around to checking my M-29 speed-loaders with .44 Russians in my S & W DA .44.

Worked like a charm!!

 ;D ;D

Books
G.I.L.S.

K.V.C.
N.C.O.W.S. 2279 - Senator
Hiram's Rangers C-3
G.A.F. 415
S.F.T.A.

Offline Fox Creek Kid

  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4559
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2008, 12:02:32 PM »
We'll know you've gone too far Books when you start saying "do you feel lucky, punk?" to the targets!!  ;D :D ;)

Offline ColonelFlashman

  • Thank'ee! And Damn Your Eyes.
  • CAS-L Ghost Rider
  • Top Active Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 261
  • '73 N.W.M.P. Field Uniform, Assit. Commis.
    • "Sir Harry Flashman's Memiors"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not historically correct BUT?
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2008, 06:18:54 PM »
FYI  ;D Well I tracked down the 25-5 speedloader and tried it on my Schofields. Worked like a charm!!
Best yet it worked as well or better (no rattle) with my Schofield loads. Thanks to all who responded.

One of the Main problems w/ the 25-5's & the M-29's, is that they are Not Period & Even if the Sport started Allowing Speed Loaders, those Aren't even Close to being Period Correct, so not Allowable. Make a set of the Kelton's Speed Loaders using a piece of rubber cut from an inner tube.
Colonel Sir Harry Paget Flashman VC KCB KCIE USMH;
Colonel 17th Lancers Staff Political Officer;
Staff Corp Commander & D.o.P. Command Staff
WartHog, Pistolero & Mounted Shootist
 :uk:  :usa:  :canada:  :dixie:  :ausie:

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk

© 1995 - 2023 CAScity.com